Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

[captain obvious]

I am troubled that no one has pointed to the origin of the pledge itself - created by a socialist intent on a stronger central government.

I'll swear an oath to the US CONSTITUTION (or my state), but NOT the country or flag itself.

 

[Zrex]

The words "under God" is in our Pledge of Allegiance.

Should it be there? Frankly, I don't know, but it is.

If you say the pledge and leave "under God" out, nobody will send you to jail.

If you stand and keep your mouth shut, nobody will send you to jail.

If you refuse to stand, and refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, nobody will send you to jail.

This, to me, is where a judge should have no reason to even look at the Pledge. There is no law broken if you don't say the Pledge; there is no harm if you do.

So, why in the hell is a judge outlawing something that isn't a law anyway?

This looks to me like one more activist judge is trying to get God out of our society.

Maybe they should change the wording from "under God" to "under NO god" and see how many people get their right wing panties in a wad. I wonder how many angry parents would call their kids schools then.... but, hey, no one is forcing you to say it, right?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

But don't we have to acknowledge that "under Allah" woud be just as valid, but it wouldn't fly? Wonder why?

One of the girls I went to school with did just that. She recited "...one nation under Allah..." while the rest of us recited ether "..one nation under God..." or "...one nation, indivisible..." Surprise! Nobody much cared.

Thus proving the advantages of leaving the choice up to the individual. (Why is this such a difficult concept? )

(She eventually switched to "...one nation under God..." once she learned enough about comparative religion to understand that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all nominally worship the same God.)

 

[RealGun]

Maybe they should change the wording from "under God" to "under NO god"

Either way is polarizing. Keeping religion and government separate (completely) is a fine way to keep the peace, avoid distraction, and stick to the essential business of government. It isn't a lot different than internet forums prohibiting off-topic discussions of religion. We know that it is counterproductive. Historically it is the stuff wars are made of.

I think part of the wisdom in "separation" is the belief that the country wouldn't endure without it.

 

[PressCheck]

Exactly. Plus, the 'god' part was only introduced in the 1950s.

1953. Due to some pressure from the Knights of Columbus. I had to learn "under God" when reciting.

 

[RealGun]

One of the girls I went to school with did just that. She recited "...one nation under Allah..." while the rest of us recited ether "..one nation under God..." or "...one nation, indivisible..." Surprise! Nobody much cared.

Oh no, kids don't care about conforming.

Thus proving the advantages of leaving the choice up to the individual. (Why is this such a difficult concept? )

It's difficult because the Pledge was coverted to a prayer. You can say adding "under God" is innocuous, but the intent was quite clear.

(She eventually switched to "...one nation under God..." once she learned enough about comparative religion to understand that Muslims, Jews, and Christians all nominally worship the same God.)

Then "under Allah" would work fine for everyone.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's difficult because the Pledge was coverted to a prayer. You can say adding "under God" is innocuous, but the intent was quite clear.

Then don't say the prayerful version of the pledge. It's only a prayer if you want it to be. As somebody pointed out previously, there's nothing illegal about not reciting all (or any) of the pledge. If you don't want to do it, then just don't. It is a free country, afterall. (At least, until judges like this one get their way.)


This illustrates one of my problems with "libertarians". They say they're all for free choice. They are, so long as everyone makes non-Christian, non-traditional choices. They say they're for government non-intereference, and they are, usually, unless the government is interfering with my ability to act like a Christian.

Then "under Allah" would work fine for everyone.

Yeah, pretty much. The "G-d of Abraham", "God the Father" and "Allah" are all semantically equal. She switched to "God" when she learned that it was simply the American version of what she had been saying all along.

 

[RealGun]

(At least, until judges like this one get their way.)

You have decided you know something unspoken.

They say they're for government non-intereference, and they are, usually, unless the government is interfering with my ability to act like a Christian.

Yeah, right. If church people don't get their way, they are being persecuted. Why can't there be a time and place for prayer? Because the argument is that faith is relevant to everything, never mind what the Constitution says. Someone has to say no, or it progresses from there until a cleric of one religion is elected President (theocracy) or has extraordinary influence on the government. It works both ways. Church and State agree to stay out of each other's business.

 

[Gordon Fink]

This illustrates one of my problems with “libertarians”. They say they’re all for free choice. They are, so long as everyone makes non-Christian, non-traditional choices. They say they’re for government non-intereference, and they are, usually, unless the government is interfering with my ability to act like a Christian.

Headless, you really don’t know much about libertarians, do you? There are many Christian libertarians.

Personally, as a libertarian, I think the Pledge (with or without God) is wrong. Children should not be compelled to profess loyalty to concepts that most aren’t yet mature enough to even understand.

~G. Fink

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yeah, right. If church people don't get their way, they are being persecuted.

Why shouldn't Christians get their way in this matter? Beling allowed to recite the phrase "under God" doesn't hurt anyone, and it doesn't restrict anyones' liberties. So why, under libertarian philosophy, is this supposed to be illegal?

Why can't there be a time and place for prayer? Because the argument is that faith is relevant to everything, never mind what the Constitution says.

Whoa... What part of the Constitution says that faith can't be a part of my daily life? Faith is relevant to everything, in my (Christain) opinion. Go ask a preacher whether being Christian is a Sunday-morning-only thing or a 24/7 thing.

Church and State agree to stay out of each other's business.

Amen!!

The government has no business telling me when I can and can't speak the name of God.







My position is that individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to say "God" in school. I like to say it, so I do. My old schoolmate wants to say "Allah" instead, so she does. You don't want to say either, so you remain silent. Isn't this the libertarian way?

Now along comes a judge who says my only choice is to remain silent. How is this an improvement, freedom-wise?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Headless, you really don’t know much about libertarians, do you? There are many Christian libertarians.

Maybe I don't. I know a few avowed libertatians. I've read some about libertarian beliefs. I've never met a Christian libertarian, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere.

Force and fraud, right? What part of "under God" applies force to my neighbors? What part of "under God" defrauds my neighbors? It seems pretty cut and dry, to me. Libertarians should be opposed to the new restrictions put in place by this judge, right?

Or is my understanding of libertarianism incorrect?

 

[joab]

That arguement is self-contradictory - you can't have it both ways. EITHER "under God" is by nature religious, in which case the gov has no authority to restrict an individual's use of it. OR "under God" isn't religious, in which case there are no grounds to bar it under the 1A. So which is it?

How could this be self contradictory

The free exercise of Christianity is not being prohibited the governments endorsement of Christianity is.

No individual is being restricted from saying the pledge anytime he/she feels the need. They are simply restricting a government entity from endorsing a religion in their morning announcements.
You want your kids to pledge to one nation under god every morning, they can do it at the breakfast table or the bus stop.
You can line them up on the front lawn for all the neighbors to see, as long as your front lawn is not designated as and official governmental gathering place conducting governmental business at the time.

Nothing in the ruling even addresses an individual's rights to pray to the flag any time he wants to, on his own.

It simply addresses the governments ability to make it part of mandatory indoctrination.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The government has no business telling me when I can and can’t speak the name of God.

Well, exactly, and compelling children or anyone to say the Pledge of Allegiance currently requires them to also recognize and venerate a monotheistic entity even if they are atheists, non-theists, polytheists, or agnostics. The government’s sanction of the words “under God” in the Pledge is an establishment of religion and therefore unconstitutional on its face.

~G. Fink

 

[thorn726]

Then don't say the prayerful version of the pledge. It's only a prayer if you want it to be. As somebody pointed out previously, there's nothing illegal about not reciting all (or any) of the pledge. If you don't want to do it, then just don't. It is a free country, afterall. (At least, until judges like this one get their way.)

i have a feeling this is wrong. not doing what you are required in class can certainly have consequences even if they are not legal.
i imagine most schools/teachers are easy on it, but it only takes one to make a real problem.

as far as the voucher system- it will be interesting to see what kind of schools the poor are left with.

personally, i dont want anyone to be pressured into giving God praise or respect. it either comes form within or it doesnt. forcing it on people is why we have so many rabid atheists.

i'm tired of being afraid to tell people i am Christian, that as soon as they find out i am named an oppressor.

 

[joab]

personally, i dont want anyone to be pressured into giving God praise or respect. it either comes form within or it doesnt.

Spoken like a TRUE Christian, IMHO

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

When I was in school, the "under God" phrase was optional. Is this not the way it is everywhere? Maybe they do things differently in California.

It is wrong to force children to say "under God". If this is what the California schools are doing then they should be ordered to stop.

But it is just as wrong to force children to NOT say "under God" if they choose to do so. Any judge who prohibits an individual's exercise of religion or expression of beliefs, in any place or any time, is FLAT OUT WRONG.

The proper response would have been requiring the schools to make "under God" optional. I had (mistakenly) thought that "optional" was the status quo, which Newdow and the judge wanted to change. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

So, the judge didn't make things any worse. He exchanged one wrong circumstance for another equally wrong circumstance, for zero net improvement. Oh well...



I've said all I want to say on this matter. I'm interested in others' opinions, but this is the last I'll express of mine.

 

[rock jock]

This illustrates one of my problems with "libertarians". They say they're all for free choice. They are, so long as everyone makes non-Christian, non-traditional choices. They say they're for government non-intereference, and they are, usually, unless the government is interfering with my ability to act like a Christian.

+1

 

[Gordon Fink]

But it is just as wrong to force children to NOT say “under God” if they choose to do so. Any judge who prohibits an individual’s exercise of religion or expression of beliefs, in any place or any time, is FLAT OUT WRONG.

Yep, and no American judge has ever done so that I’m aware of—certainly not in the case at hand anyway.

~G. Fink

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yep, and no American judge has ever done so that I’m aware of—certainly not in the case at hand anyway.

~G. Fink

You're kidding, right? You've got to be. 'Cause that's EXACTLY what this judge has done in this case.

Man, I'm sure I've misinterpretted your comment. That's the only rational explaination...

(I'm outta here, and this time I mean it... )

 

[joab]

But it is just as wrong to force children to NOT say "under God" if they choose to do so. Any judge who prohibits an individual's exercise of religion or expression of beliefs, in any place or any time, is FLAT OUT WRONG.

The proper response would have been requiring the schools to make "under God" optional. I had (mistakenly) thought that "optional" was the status quo, which Newdow and the judge wanted to change. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I am in partial agreement with you.
To my mind the solution is to allow the individual to say "under god" if they choose to.

Not to not say under god if they choose so.

The official state sanctioned pledge, recited as a governmental group, should not include the endorsement but they should be able to choose, as individuals, to add it on their own. In a non disruptive manner

 

[Bruce H]

If it is constitutional for congress to insert "under god" into another persons wrightings, would it be constitutional for them to insert or deleat text in anybodys work. Immagine the fun they could have with Unintended Consequences. It doesn't belong there because the original author didn't put it there. Congress shouldn't be editors although they like to take control of everythiing under the sun.

 

[Gordon Fink]

You’re kidding, right? You’ve got to be. ’Cause that’s EXACTLY what this judge has done in this case.

Headless, please show me where the judge forbade anyone from saying “under God,” “hare Krishna,” “namu Amida Butsu,” or any other religious phrase. Forbidding a government pledge which requires a religious acknowledgement is not the same thing. The students and faculty are still free to worship their respective deities.

~G. Fink

 

[XLMiguel]

On Leno last night Jay made an interesting observation:

What happens when they go to trial on this and start swearing everyone in and the bailiff says, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, . . ., so help you GOD?"

should be interesting

 

[RealGun]

On Leno last night Jay made an interesting observation:

What happens when they go to trial on this and start swearing everyone in and the bailiff says, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, . . ., so help you GOD?"

should be interesting

You should mention that the oath is given with a hand on the Bible, which includes the Christian New Testament.

 

[joab]

You should mention that the oath is given with a hand on the Bible, which includes the Christian New Testament.

I've been sworn in once or twice, or more.
I have never placed my hand on a bible or been instructed to.
I was also asked
"Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
Fear of God was never invoked